The Speech only a Right-Wing Nut Job Would Give (Spencer or Weldon)
If Sestak had a friend like Gil Spencer, Sestak's enemies could all retire. In his April 5th column (though all his columns should be dated April 1st), Gil Spencer offers a speech for Sestak to give at this Saturday's CAIR banquet. Spencer: A free speech for Sestak, if he CAIRs
It is hardly any suprise that Gil's speech is filled with half-truths, misinformation, false analogies and falsehoods. It's the speech Weldon would give if we hadn't kicked him out of office.
Gil would have Sestak say:
Joe knows that Bush and the GOP left our ports vulnerable. That 3,000+ US servicemen are dead and tens of thousands more wounded. There was a subway attack in Britain and overall increase in terrorism and terrorist recruitment worldwde. Illegal wiretaps by the FBI haven't made us safer. Breaking our military preparedness hasn't made us safer. Bombarding the FBI with thousands of false leads has taken time and resources away from pursuing real leads.
There were 8 years between the first WTC attack in 1993 and the second one in 2001. It's only been 5 1/2 years since the last attack here. In that time, Bin Laden (with the Bush bring-it-on challenge) has recruited and trained a lot more terrorists spread out all over the world, while we've squandered 500 billion dollars and our moral authority as a world leader.
Gil would have Sestak condemn CAIR (at their own banquet) because in a 1998 speech, CAIR Chairman Omar M. Ahmad called for the Islam being the dominant religion in not only America but the world. Gil, you should tune into the 700 Club to see some of the stuff Pat Robertson says, even calling for the assignation of the leader of a sovereign country). If Joe spoke at a 700 Club meeting, I'd be a lot more worried.
Gil would have Joe reach back fourteen years to quote a 1993 interview with CAIR spokesperson, Ibrahim Hooper, talking about wishing the US was Islamic and wanting to achieve that goal through education and not violence. For that statement, Gil also would have Sestak equate Hooper with Bin Laden claiming they have the same goals, merely different methods. Gil, do you want Joe to sound like an idiot?
Gil, Joe would NEVER say: "But George Bush didn’t go to war in Iraq to kill Muslims. He went to war to depose a dictator, Saddam Hussein.". Well, Bush originally claimed to go to stop a weapons program (that didn't exist). Bush turned down a pre-war deal from Saddam to step down (if US would let him live and move to another country)... so much for deposing being a reason. Bush went for the oil, for Dick Cheney's warped vision, and for the chip Bush had on his shoulder about Bush Sr. knowing better than to invade/occupy Iraq. As for killing Muslims, that was just a bonus to the neocons. Ask Ann Coulter, who doesn't feel we've killed enough.
The line: "So when CAIR accuses non-Muslim Americans of acting out of bigotry and bad faith, it is actually CAIR that is acting in bad faith" seems to be pure denial by Gil of his own bad-faith. Gil's already on record that Imams praying loudly and daring to speak in Arabic and saying "God is great" are all good-faith reasons to be suspicious. I don't think Gil is smart enough to understand the irony of him asking Sestak to claim CAIR is acting in bad-faith. Even Archie Bunker has more self-awareness than that.
Finally Gil wants Sestak to tell CAIR: "You should set these America-hating radicals straight." Gee, isn't that what CAIR did issuing a FATWA against terrorism and putting out full-page ads condemning terrorism after 9/11?
The only way Gil's version of Sestak speech could be more insulting to the group is if he stripped naked and jumped into a tub filled with roast pork.
It is hardly any suprise that Gil's speech is filled with half-truths, misinformation, false analogies and falsehoods. It's the speech Weldon would give if we hadn't kicked him out of office.
Gil would have Sestak say:
And since [9/11] we have been spared any serious follow-up attacks, thanks primarily to changes in our laws, stepped up security and greater vigilance.
Joe knows that Bush and the GOP left our ports vulnerable. That 3,000+ US servicemen are dead and tens of thousands more wounded. There was a subway attack in Britain and overall increase in terrorism and terrorist recruitment worldwde. Illegal wiretaps by the FBI haven't made us safer. Breaking our military preparedness hasn't made us safer. Bombarding the FBI with thousands of false leads has taken time and resources away from pursuing real leads.
There were 8 years between the first WTC attack in 1993 and the second one in 2001. It's only been 5 1/2 years since the last attack here. In that time, Bin Laden (with the Bush bring-it-on challenge) has recruited and trained a lot more terrorists spread out all over the world, while we've squandered 500 billion dollars and our moral authority as a world leader.
Gil would have Sestak condemn CAIR (at their own banquet) because in a 1998 speech, CAIR Chairman Omar M. Ahmad called for the Islam being the dominant religion in not only America but the world. Gil, you should tune into the 700 Club to see some of the stuff Pat Robertson says, even calling for the assignation of the leader of a sovereign country). If Joe spoke at a 700 Club meeting, I'd be a lot more worried.
Gil would have Joe reach back fourteen years to quote a 1993 interview with CAIR spokesperson, Ibrahim Hooper, talking about wishing the US was Islamic and wanting to achieve that goal through education and not violence. For that statement, Gil also would have Sestak equate Hooper with Bin Laden claiming they have the same goals, merely different methods. Gil, do you want Joe to sound like an idiot?
Gil, Joe would NEVER say: "But George Bush didn’t go to war in Iraq to kill Muslims. He went to war to depose a dictator, Saddam Hussein.". Well, Bush originally claimed to go to stop a weapons program (that didn't exist). Bush turned down a pre-war deal from Saddam to step down (if US would let him live and move to another country)... so much for deposing being a reason. Bush went for the oil, for Dick Cheney's warped vision, and for the chip Bush had on his shoulder about Bush Sr. knowing better than to invade/occupy Iraq. As for killing Muslims, that was just a bonus to the neocons. Ask Ann Coulter, who doesn't feel we've killed enough.
The line: "So when CAIR accuses non-Muslim Americans of acting out of bigotry and bad faith, it is actually CAIR that is acting in bad faith" seems to be pure denial by Gil of his own bad-faith. Gil's already on record that Imams praying loudly and daring to speak in Arabic and saying "God is great" are all good-faith reasons to be suspicious. I don't think Gil is smart enough to understand the irony of him asking Sestak to claim CAIR is acting in bad-faith. Even Archie Bunker has more self-awareness than that.
Finally Gil wants Sestak to tell CAIR: "You should set these America-hating radicals straight." Gee, isn't that what CAIR did issuing a FATWA against terrorism and putting out full-page ads condemning terrorism after 9/11?
The only way Gil's version of Sestak speech could be more insulting to the group is if he stripped naked and jumped into a tub filled with roast pork.
posted by David Diano at 10:35 PM
10 Comments:
I forgot,how many times have we been attacked in this country since 9/11.Gil is right on target,I say get Gil to run against Sestak.If Sestak looked bad in the debates against Weldon,imagine Gil mopping the floor with him!
Gil's the man!!
Anonymous and Anonymous
The "we haven't been attacked since" argument is a simplistic as it is hollow. It fails to acknowledge that Bin Laden spaces his attacks by years and tests his methods in other countries first. The "fight them over there, so we don't fight them over here" strategy did not work for the victims of the London bombings, either. That was a practice run, and nothing the US or Britain has in place will prevent another one.
Bush's policies have weaken not only our military, but our ability to respond to disasters in our own country: Katrina.
How many lives could have been saved if we had 20,000 more National Guard troops here, doing the job they signed up to do?
This weakened ability to respond will make the next attack (and there will be another) that much more devastating.
BTW, the profiling of Muslims for "suspicious" attivity is the same kind of thinking that lead the over-eager British security forces to run down and shoot execution-style an innocent young man in the subway. If there were more people like Gil running around, the Imams would be in a grave instead of a court room.
Gil's the man in the same way Archie Bunker would be, only with less heart.
So were going to be attacked again and your against profiling Muslims,I guess we can all hold hands and sing until it happens,get your head out of the sand.
Anonymous-
Did any of you guys graduate high school or pass English?
" your against profiling Muslims"
Try " you're " instead (short for "you are").
Maybe we should profile all White NRA members, like Timothy McVeigh?
What's your solution? Deport all Muslims or believers in Islam?
So, should cops replace driving-while-black with driving-while-muslim and search every car?
Maybe we should put a lojack chip in every Muslim that alerts police whenever more than 3 of them gather at the same place.
How about requiring Muslims to have government security cameras installed in their homes and cars?
How about taking your head out of your ass?
Name an NRA board member who donated money to a terrorist group(CAIR has many).Very stupid comparison.
Graduated same high school as Joe!
Anonymous-
You really need to learn to read.
You advocated profiling Muslims (not just CAIR members, but Muslims in general) to prevent another terrorist attack because 9/11 terrorists were Muslim.
Well, Timothy McVeigh was a terrorist. What matches to his "profile" should be be stopping?
White, Republican, NRA member. How about anyone complaining about the handling of Waco?
The NRA has weakened gun laws to make it easier for crooks and terrorists to get guns. NRA opposed bans on automatic assault rifles and cop-killer armor piercing bullets. By means of their legislative agenda, the NRA board members lend material support to violent criminals and network of straw dealers in illegal weapons. They fight against child safety locks on guns.
So, yes. The NRA and it's board are responsible for more violent deaths in this country than by foreign terrorists. The NRA leadership supports criminals under the guise of gun rights.
I don't see anything on CAIR's site advocating that every American Muslim should arm himself with a gun
Now, that's an interesting idea... How does the NRA feel about US citizens that are Muslims having the maximum number of guns and firepower allowed by law?
But I digress...
The point is not only that profiling Muslims is wrong, but that the profiling currently in use is less than worthless. The government has rounded up, detained and deported thousands of people that posed no threat to society. They've screened millions of airline passengers and collected untold numbers of nail-clippers. Did this make us safer?
And what is the deal with the nail-clippers?
1) Are we to believe that there is no defense against a nail-clipper?
2) Why keep the nail-clipper and let the passenger that owned it board the airplane?
Think about it, if he was such a threat that he would have used a nail-clipper to take over a plane, why not cuff and jail him right there.
If he wasn't going to take over the plane with a nail-clipper, then why confiscate it?
3) They collected millions of harmless everyday items. Are we to believe that millions of Americans are dangerous terrorists?
And before any Anonymous idiot points out that the 9/11 hijackers had box-cutters, let me kill that argument right now.
Box-cutters were effective weapons only BEFORE 9/11. Since then, the passengers would easily stop anyone with such a simple weapon. It's a non-starter.
Our current "profiling" stops infants with names matching the no-fly-list. Unless "poo" qualifies as biological weapon or crying as a sonic weapon, I'm willing to take my chances and risk and flying with a baby on board (Muslim or not).
Finally, the "profiling" is done with dubious methods by anonymous sources. Anonymous is not reliable. (The blog postings back me up on this.)
Dave,the 9/11 hijackers had boxcutters!
Anonymous-
You guys really can't read. It's amazing.
I wrote: And before any Anonymous idiot points out that the 9/11 hijackers had box-cutters, let me kill that argument right now.
Box-cutters were effective weapons only BEFORE 9/11. Since then, the passengers would easily stop anyone with such a simple weapon. It's a non-starter.
Then, what does the next Anonymous idiot write? Dave,the 9/11 hijackers had boxcutters!
1) Box-cutters stopped being effective weapons on 9/12
2) Nail-clippers are less harmful than box-cutters
3) The confiscation of nail-clippers is an example of how the government cannot distinguish real from non-real threats.
4) The government profiling is equally flawed (stopping infants).
The government engages in "fake security" that is little more than smoke and mirrors to pacify the public. In the weeks following 9/11, Philly airport had armed soldiers (but, unknown to the public at the time, with unloaded weapons). The current government are not designed to make people safe, only to make them feel safe. For biggots, profiling Muslims makes them feel safe.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home